הַיָּ֣ם רָ֭אָה וַיָּנֹ֑ס הַ֝יַּרְדֵּ֗ן יִסֹּ֥ב לְאָחֽוֹר׃
Nakita ito ng dagat at tumakas; ang Jordan ay umatras pabalik.
Ibn Ezra
הבוק תבוק. Shall be utterly emptied. Comp. בוקק (ver. 1); הבוק is infinitive Niphal of a verb בקק) ע״ע to empty). חבוק is formed like יסוב is driven back3According to I. E. יִסּוֹב ,תִּבּוֹז ,תִּבּוֹק, are forms of the future Niphal for יִסַּב ,תּבַּזּ ,תִּבַּק. (Ps. 114:3.) הבוז תבוז Shall be utterly spoiled. The same.4Infinitive and future Niphal.—Since God decreed this, there will not remain to man any cause to exalt himself above his fellow.
Midrash BeChiddush
Then, “The sea saw them and fled.” (Ps. 114:3) The sea is an epithet for the husks308The husks is a reference to the powers of evil in Lurianic Kabbalah. whose waves roar (in their desire) to overturn the world, but when holiness comes and overtakes them they flee before her and go down to the depths of the netherworld. “The Jordan River ran backward…. The Mountains, skipping like rams…” (Ps. 114:3-4) These are the four gifts of the husks , all of which shattered because of the strength of the Holiness.
ואולם. However, according to the plain meaning of the text one must explain why it says, “The sea saw them and fled,” in the past tense but, “the Jordan River will run backwards,” in the future tense. Further, how is it that, “The mountains skipped like rams, hills like sheep?” Since it is known that at the time of the splitting of the sea it was necessary for Moses to raise his hands over the sea, as is stated, “And you lift up your rod and hold out your arm over the sea and split it…” (Ex. 14:16) it would seem that the main disagreement between Moses and the sea was that the sea did not want to split as we wrote above. It was necessary for him to force it to split against the sea’s will. Only then did the Jordan River conclude that it could not refuse completely. Rather Israel immediately gathered on the shore and the Kohanim, the bearers of the ark, immersed their feet in its waters and continued to go down until they had passed through. And so it happened. And because they received this upon themselves at the time of the splitting of the Reed Sea, therefore the Jordan River drew back, as if when the sea saw and fled, certainly the Jordan River also would also draw back. The Psalmist said that the river flowed back until it reached the place of the Jordan crossing…309The last part of this passage is not clear to me - readers are invited to aid in the translation.
ואולם. However, according to the plain meaning of the text one must explain why it says, “The sea saw them and fled,” in the past tense but, “the Jordan River will run backwards,” in the future tense. Further, how is it that, “The mountains skipped like rams, hills like sheep?” Since it is known that at the time of the splitting of the sea it was necessary for Moses to raise his hands over the sea, as is stated, “And you lift up your rod and hold out your arm over the sea and split it…” (Ex. 14:16) it would seem that the main disagreement between Moses and the sea was that the sea did not want to split as we wrote above. It was necessary for him to force it to split against the sea’s will. Only then did the Jordan River conclude that it could not refuse completely. Rather Israel immediately gathered on the shore and the Kohanim, the bearers of the ark, immersed their feet in its waters and continued to go down until they had passed through. And so it happened. And because they received this upon themselves at the time of the splitting of the Reed Sea, therefore the Jordan River drew back, as if when the sea saw and fled, certainly the Jordan River also would also draw back. The Psalmist said that the river flowed back until it reached the place of the Jordan crossing…309The last part of this passage is not clear to me - readers are invited to aid in the translation.
Midrash BeChiddush
אלו קרע לנו את־הים ולא העבירנו בתוכו בחרבה, דיינו “If God had split the Sea for us but had not taken us through it on dry land (haravah), it would have been enough for us.” If God had left the sea bed as muck and mud (it would have been enough). Also, even if we had to struggle to pass through the sea bed it would have been enough since we were being redeemed. But God wanted to bring us through the sea on dry land; that is, there was water to their right and left and above them; only below them was (the sea bed) dry and parched. The reason that the Maggid chose the word haravah, rather than yevashah, as is stated, “But the Israelites marched through the sea on (yabashah) dry ground. ” (Ex. 14:29) It is because haravah243In Ex. 14:21 it uses the other word: “Drove back the sea with a strong east wind all that night, and turned the sea into dry ground (b’haravah).” alludes to the water taking the form of a tent, as is stated, אֶת־הַיָּם לֶחָרָבָה “God turned the sea into dry land.” (Ex. 14:21) The abbreviation of the phrase is אה’’ל, ohel, tent.
However it is also more exacting to ask why the Maggid chose the word קרע, as in the statement, “had not split קרע the sea for us” split instead of וַיִּבָּקְעוּ as in the verse, “The waters were split (יִּבָּקְעוּ)” (Ex. 14:21) Regarding this matter we will understand what my teacher of blessed memory said regarding the verse, “The sea returned to its normal state (לְאֵיתָנוֹ).” (Ex. 14:27) לְאֵיתָנוֹ means “to its original condition.” What is the “condition,” תנאי here? Are not the stipulations of a condition based (on the Mishnah in Kiddushin), “Any condition that is not like the condition Moses stipulated with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben is not a valid condition and is not taken into account.” 244Mishnah Kiddushin 3:4 Which does not specify both the result of fulfilling the condition and the result of the condition remaining unfulfilled.
When God created the world, what conditions were met? The sages inform us, “At the time when the Holy One sought to create the world, He said to the minister of the sea: “Open your mouth and swallow all the waters of the world,” so that there will be room for land.” The minister of the sea said before God: “Master of the Universe, it is enough that I will stay within my own waters.”245BT Bava Batra 79b This is surprising - how could the minister of the sea refuse to accept a gift from its Master? However it is fitting to believe that the minister of the sea was the group of ministering angels who opposed the creation of humanity. And the angels said that the person who was about to be created would eventually sin. When God told the sea to receive all the waters of the world in order to prepare a dwelling place (for humanity), he said, “Since man would eventually sin, it will be necessary to drown him; therefore take back the gift that you are giving me. It is better that I stand in my own water!” This was a great transgression; even though humanity was created after the separating of the waters, when God said he wanted to create a space on which to place humanity, the minister of the seas gave a reason to prevent it and did not want to accept the waters, as has been said. “God immediately struck the minister and killed him; as it is stated: “By His understanding He smites Rahab” (Job 26:12)246Ibid Bava Batra The gathering of waters was the condition that it would continue to ebb and flow, as if it were going to spill on to the earth. And the gift was that the tide would return to its original place periodically. This is what we now see, the waters go forth and recede every six hours.
When Israel came close to the sea, God said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites to go forward.” (Ex. 14:15) Moses then spoke to the sea and said, “Split your waters!” The sea said to him, “I don’t want to!” Since this matter seemed wrong (to the sea), it said, “It is not enough that you obligate me to return the waters that were given to me, but you are taking from me my personal portion and making it dry so that the Israelites can pass through. Was it not the stipulation to give me back only my portion? In great fury the sea wanted to drown all the Israelites. Thus it is written, “The waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left.” (Ex. 14:22) The word is written as חֹמָ֔ה247The word chomah, wall, is written without a vav, and is interpreted as cheimah, fury. wall, without a vav, meaning cheimah, fury. Moses then went to the Holy One and said, “The sea doesn’t want to divide its waters.” God immediately appeared to the sea. When the sea saw God and Moses, it fled before them, as is written, “The sea saw them and fled.” (Ps. 114:3) But God’s anger was not assuaged because the minister of the sea refused God’s commandments and was recalcitrant. What did God do? God grabbed hold of the sea and tore it into twelve pieces, just as a person tears up a garment. And at the sound of the tearing the water raised its voice and cried out, as is stated, “Above the voice of the mighty waters, more terrible than the breakers of the sea.” (Ps. 93:4) That is, the mighty waters raised their voice when they heard the splitting and smashing of the sea. The sea in particular raised its voice and cried, as Scripture states, “Have you penetrated the crying of the sea.” (Job 38:16) But since the gates of tears are never closed, the waters returned to their original “stipulation,” and the gift was returned to them as has been mentioned and it never again rebelled against any commandment that came to it from the righteous, those who are ruled over by fear of God.
The place of the split is still known. As is stated in Berachot, Perek HaRoeh (ch. 9) “One who sees the crossings of the Red Sea and the crossings of the Jordan; and the crossings of the streams of Arnon...must give thanks and offer praise before God.”248Berachot 54a Granted that the place of the splitting of the Jordan was known to them - this was because the Israelites placed twelve stones there. Also the location of Arnon was known because it was between two mountains. But even if there was an impression left by the splitting of the Red Sea, how could one recognize it? Actually, the sea never returned to the way it was and its place (of the splitting) was recognizable. Regarding this the sages stated, “The task of providing a person’s food is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea…”249BT Pesachim 118a because God had to talk to the sea and force it to split. Similarly, it was difficult for the Holy One to provide food for someone who deserves to die of hunger because of his evil deeds. It is for this reason that the sages used this expression (“it is as difficult as splitting the sea…) since the statement, “The waters were split,” (Ex. 14:21) implies that it was split forever to publicize this matter. But Dayyenu states קָרַע, “the sea split” (and not וַיִּבָּקְעוּ). The Maggid chose this language to imply that God performed the splitting of the sea for our sake, and that God did so in the way that is implied by a full verse, as is stated, “For your ruin is vast as the sea: who can heal you?” (Lam. 2:13) The Midrash250Pekikta D’Rav Kahanah 16:3 interprets this to mean, The one in the future who will heal the broken sea, will also heal you. Certainly the sea was broken, and it is still broken until God comes to heal it, as Scripture states, “The floods stood straight like a wall.” (Ex. 15:8) The Maggid implies that the sea no longer ebbed and flowed, but stood still and cried.
However it is also more exacting to ask why the Maggid chose the word קרע, as in the statement, “had not split קרע the sea for us” split instead of וַיִּבָּקְעוּ as in the verse, “The waters were split (יִּבָּקְעוּ)” (Ex. 14:21) Regarding this matter we will understand what my teacher of blessed memory said regarding the verse, “The sea returned to its normal state (לְאֵיתָנוֹ).” (Ex. 14:27) לְאֵיתָנוֹ means “to its original condition.” What is the “condition,” תנאי here? Are not the stipulations of a condition based (on the Mishnah in Kiddushin), “Any condition that is not like the condition Moses stipulated with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben is not a valid condition and is not taken into account.” 244Mishnah Kiddushin 3:4 Which does not specify both the result of fulfilling the condition and the result of the condition remaining unfulfilled.
When God created the world, what conditions were met? The sages inform us, “At the time when the Holy One sought to create the world, He said to the minister of the sea: “Open your mouth and swallow all the waters of the world,” so that there will be room for land.” The minister of the sea said before God: “Master of the Universe, it is enough that I will stay within my own waters.”245BT Bava Batra 79b This is surprising - how could the minister of the sea refuse to accept a gift from its Master? However it is fitting to believe that the minister of the sea was the group of ministering angels who opposed the creation of humanity. And the angels said that the person who was about to be created would eventually sin. When God told the sea to receive all the waters of the world in order to prepare a dwelling place (for humanity), he said, “Since man would eventually sin, it will be necessary to drown him; therefore take back the gift that you are giving me. It is better that I stand in my own water!” This was a great transgression; even though humanity was created after the separating of the waters, when God said he wanted to create a space on which to place humanity, the minister of the seas gave a reason to prevent it and did not want to accept the waters, as has been said. “God immediately struck the minister and killed him; as it is stated: “By His understanding He smites Rahab” (Job 26:12)246Ibid Bava Batra The gathering of waters was the condition that it would continue to ebb and flow, as if it were going to spill on to the earth. And the gift was that the tide would return to its original place periodically. This is what we now see, the waters go forth and recede every six hours.
When Israel came close to the sea, God said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites to go forward.” (Ex. 14:15) Moses then spoke to the sea and said, “Split your waters!” The sea said to him, “I don’t want to!” Since this matter seemed wrong (to the sea), it said, “It is not enough that you obligate me to return the waters that were given to me, but you are taking from me my personal portion and making it dry so that the Israelites can pass through. Was it not the stipulation to give me back only my portion? In great fury the sea wanted to drown all the Israelites. Thus it is written, “The waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left.” (Ex. 14:22) The word is written as חֹמָ֔ה247The word chomah, wall, is written without a vav, and is interpreted as cheimah, fury. wall, without a vav, meaning cheimah, fury. Moses then went to the Holy One and said, “The sea doesn’t want to divide its waters.” God immediately appeared to the sea. When the sea saw God and Moses, it fled before them, as is written, “The sea saw them and fled.” (Ps. 114:3) But God’s anger was not assuaged because the minister of the sea refused God’s commandments and was recalcitrant. What did God do? God grabbed hold of the sea and tore it into twelve pieces, just as a person tears up a garment. And at the sound of the tearing the water raised its voice and cried out, as is stated, “Above the voice of the mighty waters, more terrible than the breakers of the sea.” (Ps. 93:4) That is, the mighty waters raised their voice when they heard the splitting and smashing of the sea. The sea in particular raised its voice and cried, as Scripture states, “Have you penetrated the crying of the sea.” (Job 38:16) But since the gates of tears are never closed, the waters returned to their original “stipulation,” and the gift was returned to them as has been mentioned and it never again rebelled against any commandment that came to it from the righteous, those who are ruled over by fear of God.
The place of the split is still known. As is stated in Berachot, Perek HaRoeh (ch. 9) “One who sees the crossings of the Red Sea and the crossings of the Jordan; and the crossings of the streams of Arnon...must give thanks and offer praise before God.”248Berachot 54a Granted that the place of the splitting of the Jordan was known to them - this was because the Israelites placed twelve stones there. Also the location of Arnon was known because it was between two mountains. But even if there was an impression left by the splitting of the Red Sea, how could one recognize it? Actually, the sea never returned to the way it was and its place (of the splitting) was recognizable. Regarding this the sages stated, “The task of providing a person’s food is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea…”249BT Pesachim 118a because God had to talk to the sea and force it to split. Similarly, it was difficult for the Holy One to provide food for someone who deserves to die of hunger because of his evil deeds. It is for this reason that the sages used this expression (“it is as difficult as splitting the sea…) since the statement, “The waters were split,” (Ex. 14:21) implies that it was split forever to publicize this matter. But Dayyenu states קָרַע, “the sea split” (and not וַיִּבָּקְעוּ). The Maggid chose this language to imply that God performed the splitting of the sea for our sake, and that God did so in the way that is implied by a full verse, as is stated, “For your ruin is vast as the sea: who can heal you?” (Lam. 2:13) The Midrash250Pekikta D’Rav Kahanah 16:3 interprets this to mean, The one in the future who will heal the broken sea, will also heal you. Certainly the sea was broken, and it is still broken until God comes to heal it, as Scripture states, “The floods stood straight like a wall.” (Ex. 15:8) The Maggid implies that the sea no longer ebbed and flowed, but stood still and cried.